Garbage, too. I've reported at least 10 of these things. Ads, reels. Specifically as child abuse. "After review, we determined this content does not breach our policies."

> Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?

Why reasonable? Don't these ads pass through pre-publication review, and Meta makes money off of it? Any number above zero is a serious problem. If they can't run an ad business that doesn't publish and profit off of CSAM, they shouldn't run it.

I don't think we should distinguish between 'fake' and real CSAM based on if kids are hurt; this ad machine shouldn't be able to publish it, regardless. The moral question of if it's real or kids were directly harmed seems separate to me.

How many ads for CSAM do your local TV networks broadcast? How many billboards do you drive past featuring CSAM? How about newspapers?

If a company can't operate within the law due to the scale it chooses to operate at, then it should choose not to operate at that scale.

It doesn't become acceptable to break the law because your scale means there a lots of times you don't break the law either.

This is one of those topics that gets radioactive quickly, so I'm trying to parse this comment under the recent ruling by a judge that certain obscene products of generative AI are protected under the First Amendment.

"We now live in an age where GenAI [generative AI] models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children. This case illuminates how this evolving technology complicates the lines drawn by the Supreme Court in Stanley, Osborne, and Free Speech Coalition. Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then. Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/judge-ai-child-sex-abuse-r...

Despite the source images not being CSAM, the products of nudify services may be CSAM but not child pornography. Because nudifying minors involves generation of material intended to depict real people who cannot give consent on computers outside the home, I'd consider them not to be protected speech.

> The young royal’s image was “animated into a video of her performing a graphic sex act,” TTP found. Other ads animated a photo of a 14-year-old Instagram influencer “showing off her new sports club uniform” into “a video of her performing oral sex.” A third “preteen” victim “posing in a pink athletic outfit with pigtails” in a series of stock photos was morphed into a video where she looks frightened as she’s molested by an adult male, TTP reported.

The "Kompromat" angle should not be ignored in this day and age.

"In cases of kompromat during the early 21st century, Russian operatives have been suspected or accused of placing child pornography on the personal computers of individuals they were attempting to discredit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat

The only real question is how easy it would be to target the undesired via the ad placement targetting options on social media platforms. On the one on which I've run ads (LinkedIn), pretty hard. At least on a technical level, because if your audience size is too small it asks you to expand your criteria. Maybe other platforms are less strict?

For sure would be a more comfortable approach for state operatives than physical access.

--

Aside. Watch the movie with the same name. Use an ad blocker, religiously.

The only things I can think of that have pushed these into my viewport are that I follow multiple AI news pages, and multiple photography pages, same with my IG.